إلى حب الله
03-05-2014, 08:45 PM
بحث مهم جدا بارك الله فيكم يكشف حقيقة التزوير والبهتان الذي صاغه اليهود والنصارى والعلمانيون حول الرق وحال المرأة في الإسلام ..
وهو يتحدث عن فكرة (الحريم) وكيف صورها الغرب الأوروبي في لوحات مفبركة ثم صور ثم نشرها في الطوابع وغيره باسم العرب والإسلام !
ولعله من غريب موقفي قبل قراءتي لهذا البحث - وقد وقعت عليه من الأخ عبد الله الصيدلي من مجموعة ورينا نفسك على الفيسبوك - :
أن هناك صورة شهيرة لرجل مسلم عجوز بلحية بيضاء يتوضأ :
والتي تصب له الوضوء طفلة على حافة البلوغ - أو بالغة - عارية تماما !!!..
وبالطبع لن أخبركم عن كم السباب والطعن والتشويه في الإسلام بسبب هذه الصورة ...!
وقلما تجد صفحة من صفحات سفهاء الملاحدة واللادينيين واللاأدريين إلا وقد عرض هذه الصورة - وأشباهها - ليتندروا على الإسلام بها !
فتحدثت مع أحدهم في أحد الحوارات الخاصة وقلت له :
أولا :
مَن أدراك أن هذا الرجل مسلم بالفعل ؟ ما المانع أن يكون أحد اليهود أو حتى العلمانيين أو الملاحدة أو أحد ممثلي البورنو في استوديو ؟!
ثانيا :
في أي شرع في الإسلام تجد أن يتم تصوير المرأة عارية ليراها المصور وغيره ؟!!.. سواء كانت زوجة أو أختا أو أما أو بنتا أو حتى ملكة يمين ؟!
ومن الغريب أننا نجد مثل هذه الملحوظة بالنص في هذا البحث !!!..
حيث عرف الناس دوما ومختلف الأمم التي احتكت بالمسلمين : مدى قدسية حجاب المرأة وحشمتها في المجتمع المسلم !!!..
ومن هنا كان العجب !!..
لن أطيل عليكم ..
ولولا ضيق الوقت والله لكنت ترجمته بنفسي لنحتفظ به ونحتج به كلما تجرأ أحد السفهاء بمثل هذه القاذورات لإلصاقها بالإسلام ..
ولكن عسى أن يقوم بذلك أخ فاضل أو أخت فاضلة فيكفينا مؤونة ذلك ويكسب الأجر الجاري كلما انتفع به أحد ..
وأترككم مع النص الإنجليزي ..
وأرجو ممن يريد التطوع للترجمة أن يذكر ذلك هنا حتى لا يقوم أكثر من واحد بالترجمة في نفس الوقت بغير داعي ...
وفقكم الله ..
< ملحوظة : البحث قصير وترجمته يسيرة على مَن يسره الله له إن شاء الله >
------------------
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=534169553326991&eid=ASsXAZEDem_vlmI2-rXEfTkLfvB48t3SGOoGYaLtdWcbYiz6y_S3lIcXRsA9pad72xU&inline=1&ext=1393795584&hash=ASt4ees-XQ-P-Oul
ORIAS 2011 Summer Institute for K-12 teachers
Absent Voices: Experience of common life in world history
http://orias.berkeley.edu/summer2011/Summer2011Home.htm
Summarized by Timothy Doran, Ph.d.
"Comparative Harems: Women, Sex and Family Structures
from the Middle East to South & Southeast Asia ."
Dr. Leslie Ann Woodhouse
The term “harem,” both problematic and useful, is charged with ideas and emotions
whose origins are difficult to trace. Its associations tend to cluster around these five
topics:
1.) Space
2.) Sex
3.) Slavery
4.) Seclusion
5.) Sultan/Sovereign
The harem appeared as a site of imaginings about the Orient when Africa, Asia, and
the Near East became potential colonial sites. It first became “visible” to the West in
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s eighteenth‐century essay on harems, and the later
Napoleonic twelve‐volume Description de L’Egypt (1798 – 1801) which served as
Orientalist fodder for several generations. In images from the Orientalist school of
painting, such as Ingres’ painting La Grande Odalisque around 1814, scantily clad
women lounged about exotic interiors, massaged by black slaves, implying sexual
decadence and slavery. Photographers, in turn, looked to Orientalist harem
paintings as models for staging their photographic tableaux, producing commercial
images in the colonies which traveled back to Europe via postcard. Thus images of
“real” women of the harem circulated from colonial territories back to European
consumers. In his book The Colonial Harem, Malek Alloula states “it matters little if
Orientalistic painting begins to run out of wind or falls into mediocrity. Photography
steps in to take up the slack and reactivates the phantasm at its lowest level. The
postcard does it one better; it becomes the poor man’s phantasm.”
Yet true harem women were hidden from view behind veils and the walls of private
family spaces in Algeria, Turkey, and Morocco, which were closed to Europeans. A
respectable Muslim woman would never have allowed a photo taken of her within
the family space of the household, much less in a state of undress. However, the
physical invisibility of harem women served to further titillate the Western
imagination, and perpetuate the West’s creation of images that played upon the
mystery surrounding the notion of the harem.
1920s movies such as Lost in a Harem and Douglas Fairbanks’ The Thief of Baghdad
fed stereotypes into a larger cultural discourse useful to Europeans engaged in
political as well as cultural imperialism. In these discourses, polygamy functioned as
a “site of barbarism” against women, as well as a site of racial anxiety where black eunuchs policed the harem’s spaces, in close quarters with “white” women. The
harem thus was portrayed as a site where women experienced primarily
incarceration and oppression by the tyrannical sultan (or sovereign). In contrast,
Western notions of home and family in the later 19th and early 20th centuries aligned
home and family with the democratic nation‐state, where individuals were to be
trained to become free, independent‐thinking citizens suited for self‐rule. However,
to Ottoman and Asian minds the polygamous harem was primarily domestic space,
where gender and social roles had different meanings, though also related to the
functions of the state.
Misunderstandings aside, what was the harem in reality? Let’s begin with defining
terms. The word “harem” comes from the Arabic syllables ha#ra#am, entering
English in 1634 via the Turkish, meaning “forbidden” or “off limits”: literally,
something forbidden or kept safe, from the root harama, “to be forbidden, to
exclude.” It is the opposite of halaal, meaning “allowed” or “unrestricted.”
Three sorts of harems can be constructively compared:
• The Ottoman palace from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries
• Colonial India, from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries
• Siam (Thailand) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
Dr. Woodhouse offers a caveat: it is problematic to treat colonial India as a single
unit. In much of India, tribute was simply paid to British colonial forces, leaving local
social and political structures largely intact; some Muslims ruled portions of India
and some were ruled by Hindu kings, producing little homogeneity.
Was the space of the harem itself private or public, domestic or political? Neither. A
public versus private divide on these spaces misleads, for these spaces’ usage was
conceptualized differently. As part of royal space, the harem functions dually, having
different meanings in terms of social categories at play in these societies.
Why seclude women there in the first place? Did this relate more to gender or
status? Why were women hidden away from view? Why were their freedoms
suppressed? This approach cannot elucidate the issues in play. Many people lived in
these palace spaces, the most highly secluded spaces in the realm. Several zones of
gatekeepers guarded them. Status and gender have something to do with it, but this
varies from context to context. The Ottoman seclusion of women emphasized the
Muslim conception of privacy; but royal princes were not allowed to reproduce until
they reached the throne, and this level of privacy was stricter than the level for
women. In Siam, elites were not seen in general. No one was to face a royal, on pain
of death; this did not change until the late nineteenth century. Siamese and Ottoman
palaces had the most in common. The palaces were crowded and mazelike until
individual women received residences within the walls.
Was the harem as sexual playground for one man? Islamic harems were limited. For
example, Sultan Murad V had nine women and produced seven children. Sultan
Abdulhamid had thirteen women and produced seventeen children. Reshad had five
women, producing four children. Vahideddin also had five women, producing four
children. There was no proscription on Thai King Chulalongkorn (1868 – 1910),
who had 143 consorts (77 children). In the Thai system, children broadened the
pool of potential candidates for important posts as well as the monarchy itself.
Outside the palace, how many elites practiced polygyny? Statisically, few. One study
estimates for Ottoman Istanbul only 2.3% of males having resources to support
more than one wife; in Muslim societies in North Africa and South Asia, under 5%.
Did slaves serve within the harem? Yes, but the term “slavery” requires careful
definition: often this word makes us think of American plantation slavery, but the
harem house slaves’ duties were generally less oppressive than that. Persons of
lower economic echelons desired to improve their status by selling a daughter to the
palace who, though enslaved, received training in elite manners, customs, and
practices, enabling them to work in or marry into elite houses. This could serve as a
remarkable career opportunity. Slavery was often temporary in these societies.
Duties included child rearing, wetnursing, and so on. Slaves and non‐slaves shared
many of these duties in harem households. Eunuchs were absent in the Siamese
context but present in south Asian and Ottoman contexts, in the last famously
attaining occasional positions of great power.
Who were the harem women? Slaves, princesses, and women of all classes and
castes: from slaves to servants to royal relatives to wives to concubines to the
mothers of the sultan. Women in every shade of the spectrum of agency and power.
This was true in both the Ottoman context and the Siamese context. We cannot
really consider a harem woman to be one thing. She is not monolithic. Many
different opportunities and experiences existed within the confines of the harem.
Did these women exert political power? The circulation of women into the palace,
particularly high‐status women, often linked their families by blood to the royal
family. Coming to serve as consorts to the kings helped unify center and periphery.
Places in periphery were more easily managed by this relationship. These women
had more facetime with the king than even his advisors. This seems to be true for
Ottoman harem women too. In Topkapi palace, the women were only a wall away
from political activities in the palace: the inner circle truly was an inner circle.
Was the harem bad for women? This issue often appeared in European colonialist
discourses. In these contexts, women’s status and access to their children were
more protected than they have been in many other places. In the Thailand, when
polygamy was phased out and monogamy became the only legal marriage type,
polygamous relationships continued; however, the women no longer enjoyed the
social sanctions they had possessed under customary polygamy. This clearly was a
much less fair situation for both the women involved and their offspring. In the shift from polygamy to monogamy, women lost rights to customary privilege they had
held in the past. Blanket judgments should be avoided. Siamese kings tried to
downplay polygamy toward the end of the nineteenth century.
More reading is available from Dr. Woodhouse: leslie.woodhouse@gmail.com
وهو يتحدث عن فكرة (الحريم) وكيف صورها الغرب الأوروبي في لوحات مفبركة ثم صور ثم نشرها في الطوابع وغيره باسم العرب والإسلام !
ولعله من غريب موقفي قبل قراءتي لهذا البحث - وقد وقعت عليه من الأخ عبد الله الصيدلي من مجموعة ورينا نفسك على الفيسبوك - :
أن هناك صورة شهيرة لرجل مسلم عجوز بلحية بيضاء يتوضأ :
والتي تصب له الوضوء طفلة على حافة البلوغ - أو بالغة - عارية تماما !!!..
وبالطبع لن أخبركم عن كم السباب والطعن والتشويه في الإسلام بسبب هذه الصورة ...!
وقلما تجد صفحة من صفحات سفهاء الملاحدة واللادينيين واللاأدريين إلا وقد عرض هذه الصورة - وأشباهها - ليتندروا على الإسلام بها !
فتحدثت مع أحدهم في أحد الحوارات الخاصة وقلت له :
أولا :
مَن أدراك أن هذا الرجل مسلم بالفعل ؟ ما المانع أن يكون أحد اليهود أو حتى العلمانيين أو الملاحدة أو أحد ممثلي البورنو في استوديو ؟!
ثانيا :
في أي شرع في الإسلام تجد أن يتم تصوير المرأة عارية ليراها المصور وغيره ؟!!.. سواء كانت زوجة أو أختا أو أما أو بنتا أو حتى ملكة يمين ؟!
ومن الغريب أننا نجد مثل هذه الملحوظة بالنص في هذا البحث !!!..
حيث عرف الناس دوما ومختلف الأمم التي احتكت بالمسلمين : مدى قدسية حجاب المرأة وحشمتها في المجتمع المسلم !!!..
ومن هنا كان العجب !!..
لن أطيل عليكم ..
ولولا ضيق الوقت والله لكنت ترجمته بنفسي لنحتفظ به ونحتج به كلما تجرأ أحد السفهاء بمثل هذه القاذورات لإلصاقها بالإسلام ..
ولكن عسى أن يقوم بذلك أخ فاضل أو أخت فاضلة فيكفينا مؤونة ذلك ويكسب الأجر الجاري كلما انتفع به أحد ..
وأترككم مع النص الإنجليزي ..
وأرجو ممن يريد التطوع للترجمة أن يذكر ذلك هنا حتى لا يقوم أكثر من واحد بالترجمة في نفس الوقت بغير داعي ...
وفقكم الله ..
< ملحوظة : البحث قصير وترجمته يسيرة على مَن يسره الله له إن شاء الله >
------------------
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=534169553326991&eid=ASsXAZEDem_vlmI2-rXEfTkLfvB48t3SGOoGYaLtdWcbYiz6y_S3lIcXRsA9pad72xU&inline=1&ext=1393795584&hash=ASt4ees-XQ-P-Oul
ORIAS 2011 Summer Institute for K-12 teachers
Absent Voices: Experience of common life in world history
http://orias.berkeley.edu/summer2011/Summer2011Home.htm
Summarized by Timothy Doran, Ph.d.
"Comparative Harems: Women, Sex and Family Structures
from the Middle East to South & Southeast Asia ."
Dr. Leslie Ann Woodhouse
The term “harem,” both problematic and useful, is charged with ideas and emotions
whose origins are difficult to trace. Its associations tend to cluster around these five
topics:
1.) Space
2.) Sex
3.) Slavery
4.) Seclusion
5.) Sultan/Sovereign
The harem appeared as a site of imaginings about the Orient when Africa, Asia, and
the Near East became potential colonial sites. It first became “visible” to the West in
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s eighteenth‐century essay on harems, and the later
Napoleonic twelve‐volume Description de L’Egypt (1798 – 1801) which served as
Orientalist fodder for several generations. In images from the Orientalist school of
painting, such as Ingres’ painting La Grande Odalisque around 1814, scantily clad
women lounged about exotic interiors, massaged by black slaves, implying sexual
decadence and slavery. Photographers, in turn, looked to Orientalist harem
paintings as models for staging their photographic tableaux, producing commercial
images in the colonies which traveled back to Europe via postcard. Thus images of
“real” women of the harem circulated from colonial territories back to European
consumers. In his book The Colonial Harem, Malek Alloula states “it matters little if
Orientalistic painting begins to run out of wind or falls into mediocrity. Photography
steps in to take up the slack and reactivates the phantasm at its lowest level. The
postcard does it one better; it becomes the poor man’s phantasm.”
Yet true harem women were hidden from view behind veils and the walls of private
family spaces in Algeria, Turkey, and Morocco, which were closed to Europeans. A
respectable Muslim woman would never have allowed a photo taken of her within
the family space of the household, much less in a state of undress. However, the
physical invisibility of harem women served to further titillate the Western
imagination, and perpetuate the West’s creation of images that played upon the
mystery surrounding the notion of the harem.
1920s movies such as Lost in a Harem and Douglas Fairbanks’ The Thief of Baghdad
fed stereotypes into a larger cultural discourse useful to Europeans engaged in
political as well as cultural imperialism. In these discourses, polygamy functioned as
a “site of barbarism” against women, as well as a site of racial anxiety where black eunuchs policed the harem’s spaces, in close quarters with “white” women. The
harem thus was portrayed as a site where women experienced primarily
incarceration and oppression by the tyrannical sultan (or sovereign). In contrast,
Western notions of home and family in the later 19th and early 20th centuries aligned
home and family with the democratic nation‐state, where individuals were to be
trained to become free, independent‐thinking citizens suited for self‐rule. However,
to Ottoman and Asian minds the polygamous harem was primarily domestic space,
where gender and social roles had different meanings, though also related to the
functions of the state.
Misunderstandings aside, what was the harem in reality? Let’s begin with defining
terms. The word “harem” comes from the Arabic syllables ha#ra#am, entering
English in 1634 via the Turkish, meaning “forbidden” or “off limits”: literally,
something forbidden or kept safe, from the root harama, “to be forbidden, to
exclude.” It is the opposite of halaal, meaning “allowed” or “unrestricted.”
Three sorts of harems can be constructively compared:
• The Ottoman palace from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries
• Colonial India, from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries
• Siam (Thailand) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
Dr. Woodhouse offers a caveat: it is problematic to treat colonial India as a single
unit. In much of India, tribute was simply paid to British colonial forces, leaving local
social and political structures largely intact; some Muslims ruled portions of India
and some were ruled by Hindu kings, producing little homogeneity.
Was the space of the harem itself private or public, domestic or political? Neither. A
public versus private divide on these spaces misleads, for these spaces’ usage was
conceptualized differently. As part of royal space, the harem functions dually, having
different meanings in terms of social categories at play in these societies.
Why seclude women there in the first place? Did this relate more to gender or
status? Why were women hidden away from view? Why were their freedoms
suppressed? This approach cannot elucidate the issues in play. Many people lived in
these palace spaces, the most highly secluded spaces in the realm. Several zones of
gatekeepers guarded them. Status and gender have something to do with it, but this
varies from context to context. The Ottoman seclusion of women emphasized the
Muslim conception of privacy; but royal princes were not allowed to reproduce until
they reached the throne, and this level of privacy was stricter than the level for
women. In Siam, elites were not seen in general. No one was to face a royal, on pain
of death; this did not change until the late nineteenth century. Siamese and Ottoman
palaces had the most in common. The palaces were crowded and mazelike until
individual women received residences within the walls.
Was the harem as sexual playground for one man? Islamic harems were limited. For
example, Sultan Murad V had nine women and produced seven children. Sultan
Abdulhamid had thirteen women and produced seventeen children. Reshad had five
women, producing four children. Vahideddin also had five women, producing four
children. There was no proscription on Thai King Chulalongkorn (1868 – 1910),
who had 143 consorts (77 children). In the Thai system, children broadened the
pool of potential candidates for important posts as well as the monarchy itself.
Outside the palace, how many elites practiced polygyny? Statisically, few. One study
estimates for Ottoman Istanbul only 2.3% of males having resources to support
more than one wife; in Muslim societies in North Africa and South Asia, under 5%.
Did slaves serve within the harem? Yes, but the term “slavery” requires careful
definition: often this word makes us think of American plantation slavery, but the
harem house slaves’ duties were generally less oppressive than that. Persons of
lower economic echelons desired to improve their status by selling a daughter to the
palace who, though enslaved, received training in elite manners, customs, and
practices, enabling them to work in or marry into elite houses. This could serve as a
remarkable career opportunity. Slavery was often temporary in these societies.
Duties included child rearing, wetnursing, and so on. Slaves and non‐slaves shared
many of these duties in harem households. Eunuchs were absent in the Siamese
context but present in south Asian and Ottoman contexts, in the last famously
attaining occasional positions of great power.
Who were the harem women? Slaves, princesses, and women of all classes and
castes: from slaves to servants to royal relatives to wives to concubines to the
mothers of the sultan. Women in every shade of the spectrum of agency and power.
This was true in both the Ottoman context and the Siamese context. We cannot
really consider a harem woman to be one thing. She is not monolithic. Many
different opportunities and experiences existed within the confines of the harem.
Did these women exert political power? The circulation of women into the palace,
particularly high‐status women, often linked their families by blood to the royal
family. Coming to serve as consorts to the kings helped unify center and periphery.
Places in periphery were more easily managed by this relationship. These women
had more facetime with the king than even his advisors. This seems to be true for
Ottoman harem women too. In Topkapi palace, the women were only a wall away
from political activities in the palace: the inner circle truly was an inner circle.
Was the harem bad for women? This issue often appeared in European colonialist
discourses. In these contexts, women’s status and access to their children were
more protected than they have been in many other places. In the Thailand, when
polygamy was phased out and monogamy became the only legal marriage type,
polygamous relationships continued; however, the women no longer enjoyed the
social sanctions they had possessed under customary polygamy. This clearly was a
much less fair situation for both the women involved and their offspring. In the shift from polygamy to monogamy, women lost rights to customary privilege they had
held in the past. Blanket judgments should be avoided. Siamese kings tried to
downplay polygamy toward the end of the nineteenth century.
More reading is available from Dr. Woodhouse: leslie.woodhouse@gmail.com